Re: SFUFA General Meeting This Thursday, Nov 6: Should We Formally Study Certification as a Union

[Nancy Forde <nforde@sfu.ca>]

I completely agree, especially as a faculty member unable to attend this meeting in person!

Cheers,
Nancy


----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul W. Percival" <percival@sfu.ca>
To: academic-discussion@sfu.ca, "Neil Abramson" <nabramso@sfu.ca>
Cc: "Brian Green" <brian_green@sfu.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, 5 November, 2013 13:23:37
Subject: Re: SFUFA General Meeting This Thursday, Nov 6: Should We Formally Study Certification as a Union

Lisa raises an extremely important point.  Is the intent of the motion 
to seek approval for a campaign to "educate and inform members about 
unionization", or is it to "pursue certification under the Labour Code"? 
  The former is benign; the latter is a very serious matter that should 
be brought to a vote of the whole membership, not just those of us who 
are free to attend a particular meeting.

In my opinion the motion ought to be split into two.

Paul Percival


On 05/11/2013 12:44 PM, Lisa Shapiro wrote:
> Neil,
> I am bit confused about your claim here that "if the vote is really
> close, I would want to bring the question of certification back to
> another meeting."
> I would expect that whether this vote is close or not, the question of
> certification would be brought back at another meeting. I take the issue
> being voted on is simply to explore further -- in the sense of research
> procedures, pros, cons, etc -- whether to unionize. Any exploration of
> the issue should keep the question of certification open. Otherwise, the
> vote this week really is a vote for or against certification, a vote
> which I take to be premature.
>
> Please clarify the process going forward.
>
> Thanks,
> Lisa
>
>
>
> Lisa Shapiro email: lshapiro@sfu.ca <mailto:lshapiro@sfu.ca>
> Professor of Philosophy(o) 778.782.9025 or 778.782.3343
> Philosophy Department(f) 778.782.4443
> Simon Fraser University(h) 604.684.8688
> Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6
>
>
>
>
> On 2013-11-05, at 11:53 AM, Neil Abramson wrote:
>
>> Hi Ronda
>>
>> We are introducing a motion from the SFUFA executive:
>>
>> "That over the next 12 months SFUFA educate and inform members about
>> unionization and pursue certification under the Labour Code."
>>
>> My interpretation is that if the motion passes, we will spend at least
>> the spring term, and possibly the summer term as well studying the
>> question and having events to help educate and/or inform.
>>
>> If the vote is really close, I would want to bring the question of
>> certification back to another general meeting after everyone has had a
>> chance to inform themselves. I don't want to split SFUFA into factions
>> pro and con. I want most of us to be pretty sure, one way or the
>> other, if possible. Of course I am only one member (with 1 vote) of
>> the SFUFA executive and we work democratically there as well. Two
>> thirds is what I might hope for but it will be what the Executive decides.
>>
>> Likely if SFUFA was going to start an actual certification drive
>> (collecting signatures), the earliest it could start would be next
>> fall. By then, I'll be past president.
>>
>> Regards
>> Neil
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 2013-11-05, at 11:11 AM, Ronda Arab <ronda_arab@sfu.ca
>> <mailto:ronda_arab@sfu.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Neil & Brian,
>>>
>>> Can we clarify what it is exactly we are voting on tomorrow? We are
>>> voting on whether or not SFUFA should support a unionization drive
>>> (which would eventuate a vote yes or no for a union), is that right?
>>> Obviously, at this point we are not actually voting in a union?
>>>
>>> If I am correct on what we are voting, 2/3 does seem a high margin.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ronda
>>>
>>>
>>> Ronda Arab
>>> Associate Professor of English
>>> Simon Fraser University
>>> 8888 University Drive
>>> Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6
>>>
>>> ronda_arab@sfu.ca <mailto:ronda_arab@sfu.ca>
>>> 778.782.8506 (Burnaby)
>>> 778.782.5164 (Surrey)
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From: *"Neil Abramson" <nabramso@sfu.ca <mailto:nabramso@sfu.ca>>
>>> *To: *"Yildiz Atasoy" <yatasoy@sfu.ca <mailto:yatasoy@sfu.ca>>
>>> *Cc: *"Brian Green" <brian_green@sfu.ca <mailto:brian_green@sfu.ca>>,
>>> "academic-discussion" <academic-discussion@sfu.ca
>>> <mailto:academic-discussion@sfu.ca>>
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, 5 November, 2013 10:48:04
>>> *Subject: *Re: SFUFA General Meeting This Thursday, Nov 6: Should We
>>> Formally Study Certification as a Union
>>>
>>> Hey Yildiz
>>>
>>> Check with Brian. We were hoping to provide ballots for people as
>>> they came into the meeting. We had to check if this was
>>> constitutionally ok. But if it is, you could come between classes and
>>> vote if you're already decided.
>>>
>>>
>>> All the best
>>> Neil
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On 2013-11-05, at 10:29 AM, Yildiz Atasoy <yatasoy@sfu.ca
>>> <mailto:yatasoy@sfu.ca>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Dear Neal and Colleagues,
>>> >
>>> > I am writing this because tomorrow is my teaching and office day; I
>>> will not be able to participate in the discussions. However, I will
>>> still vote.
>>> >
>>> > I think that it is way too high to seek a two-thirds majority
>>> before certification. (I realize that this is Neal's personal
>>> opinion.) I would argue that a simple majority vote, or 55 per cent
>>> at the most, is a significant enough majority.
>>> >
>>> > Sincerely,
>>> > Yıldız
>>> >
>>> > Dr. Yıldız Atasoy
>>> > Professor of Sociology,
>>> > Department of Sociology and Anthropology
>>> > Simon Fraser University
>>> > Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6
>>> > E-mail: yatasoy@sfu.ca <mailto:yatasoy@sfu.ca>
>>> > Tel: +1 (778) 782-5520
>>> > Fax: +1 (778) 782-5799
>>> > http://www.socanth.sfu.ca/people/yildiz_atasoy
>>> >
>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: "Brian Green" <brian_green@sfu.ca <mailto:brian_green@sfu.ca>>
>>> > To: sfufa-members@sfu.ca <mailto:sfufa-members@sfu.ca>
>>> > Sent: Monday, 4 November, 2013 16:07:44
>>> > Subject: SFUFA General Meeting This Thursday, Nov 6: Should We
>>> Formally Study Certification as a Union
>>> >
>>> > The following is sent on behalf of SFUFA President Neil Abramson.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ----------------
>>> > Dear Colleagues;
>>> >
>>> > Over the last 6 months, SFUFA has organized a series of 7 events
>>> seeking to inform members about the pro and con of certifying SFUFA
>>> as a union. This has been in response to a member resolution passed
>>> at our last Annual Meeting directing us to do so.
>>> >
>>> > The SFUFA Executive now plans to introduce a motion at the November
>>> 6 General Meeting that SFUFA lead a formal study of this question
>>> over the next 12 months, with the intention of applying for
>>> certification.
>>> >
>>> > So far we have had a debate, 2 coffee klatches, 3 pub gatherings,
>>> and 2 lunches at the DAC. I've also heard by email from about 80
>>> members expressing both positive and negative views, and tried to
>>> answer all of them personally.
>>> >
>>> > We have been keeping an informal poll of the 200-plus members we
>>> have talked to, or heard from. This is over 20% of our membership;
>>> probably more than has ever responded to any previous SFUFA
>>> initiative. The most responsive Faculty has been Communication where
>>> we have the opinions of 37.5% of members. On the other hand, we have
>>> only heard from 9% of members from Business.
>>> >
>>> > So far, 132 members (roughly 61.5%) have expressed support for
>>> certification. Only 16 (about 7.5%) have said they are opposed.
>>> Another 66 (just under 31%) have asked for more information before
>>> they can come to a decision.
>>> >
>>> > How many are enough? This is the question we are thinking about.
>>> Personally, I think we need two thirds to really recommend
>>> certification. So the Executive has decided to recommend formally
>>> studying the issue for up to the next 12 months. If most of those
>>> still undecided end up supporting certification, then that will be
>>> enough. If most of the undecided eventually decide against, then
>>> certification will not be appropriate.
>>> >
>>> > Similarly, at the November 6 meeting, we should also ask how many
>>> should be enough for this motion. My own view is that if the motion
>>> passes but the vote is close, then we might bring the question back
>>> to a formal vote at another General Meeting after the study process
>>> is completed.
>>> >
>>> > But suppose the motion is voted down but 45-50 (minus 1) do support
>>> it. Then, because so many do support it, we should still continue to
>>> discuss certification. We should aim for a decision, yes or no, that
>>> two thirds support - either way. That strikes me as our least
>>> divisive course of action.
>>> >
>>> > There are good reasons both for and against certification. I would
>>> like to review a few of each.
>>> >
>>> > Against Certification
>>> >
>>> > First, against. Do we really need certification? It's true that 90%
>>> of Canadian faculty (and librarians, lab instructors, etc.) are
>>> unionized. It's true the UBCFA has been unionized almost 15 years.
>>> Royal Roads is unionized. UVic is in process. UNBC is apparently
>>> about to be in process. All the teaching universities' associations
>>> belong to the same union. We look to be the last non-unionized
>>> faculty association in BC.
>>> >
>>> > Many universities, however, have quite conflictual relationships
>>> with their university administrations. We have a much stronger and
>>> more positive relationship with our administration. And I personally
>>> have found our administration responsive to issues of concern to
>>> SFUFA since I became president-elect and reached out to see what we
>>> might accomplish together this year.
>>> >
>>> > For example, we stated that gender pay equity was an important
>>> issue for us. President Petter responded by making it a strategic
>>> priority for SFU. A committee has been struck to research pay
>>> inequity and propose solutions.
>>> >
>>> > For example, I expressed concern about the situations of First
>>> Nation faculty at SFU. I have consulted on First Nation issues for
>>> over 30 years. I discovered President Petter shared the same
>>> concerns. AVP Jon Driver and I are now engaged in a joint endeavour.
>>> >
>>> > For example, I approached the administration with the hope that
>>> SFUFA could have "interest arbitration" rather than "final offer"
>>> arbitration. This was because after UBCFA received a higher salary
>>> settlement using interest arbitration than we did with final offer,
>>> many SFUFA members felt that we were stuck with an unfair,
>>> inequitable, win/lose form of arbitration.
>>> >
>>> > In my last email, I reported that the administration had refused us
>>> interest arbitration. Since then, the administration reached out for
>>> further discussion, and offered to re-consider the possibility of
>>> giving us interest arbitration for the next contract negotiation. I
>>> found their attitude very reasonable. They are concerned that they
>>> don't want a process that our members think is unfair or inequitable,
>>> and we are hopeful we might in fact be able to reach agreement on
>>> this important issue after all.
>>> >
>>> > So the argument against certification is whether it is really
>>> necessary. If the administration is responsive to our issues, then do
>>> we need to unionize?
>>> >
>>> > In Favour of Certification
>>> >
>>> > On the other hand, there are arguments in favour of certification
>>> as a union. At our first lunch, we did a small questionnaire. We
>>> found that our members main issues were:
>>> >
>>> > #1: Salaries and Benefits
>>> > #2: Working Conditions
>>> > #3: Governance Issues
>>> >
>>> > On salaries, when I came to SFU about 21 years ago, salaries were
>>> top quartile for Canadian universities. Now they are bottom quartile.
>>> On average our salaries are about 30% less than at UBC. I have it on
>>> good authority that for our Business Faculty, our salaries are about
>>> 40% less.
>>> >
>>> > And our salary scales are so low that I understand that in all 6
>>> faculties, it is difficult to hire any new faculty without offering
>>> market differentials. These days we have terrible salary inversions.
>>> The highest paid faculty members are full professors and new hires.
>>> The lowest paid are associate profs who have been at SFU a few years.
>>> And we shouldn't forget lecturers and senior lecturers who are paid a
>>> lot less than research tenure tracks. And librarians needed a big
>>> jump in the latest contract but I think they may still be getting
>>> less than at many other universities.
>>> >
>>> > The point is that we have little ability to influence our salaries
>>> and benefits as an association. We might have more influence as a
>>> union. Certainly that has been the experience of other unionized
>>> faculty associations in Canada. If a strike vote authorizes a strike
>>> - it needs 85-90% support - suddenly a more generous offer is
>>> received. This happened most recently at the University of Manitoba.
>>> The issue was not salary, but a strong strike vote did result in the
>>> university moving on the issues that we most important to faculty
>>> members.
>>> >
>>> > Work load issues, and governance issues are similar in that as an
>>> association, SFUFA cannot negotiate them unless the administration is
>>> willing. If they are not willing, then nothing can be done. If SFUFA
>>> was a union, its bargaining rights would be recognized by the Labour
>>> Relations Board rather than voluntarily granted by the SFU
>>> administration. If the latter refused to discuss a governance issue,
>>> SFUFA would have the right to mediation. We have no such right
>>> presently. So, for example, with the recent Learning Goals issue, we
>>> asked to discuss it and were refused. Only Senate opposition by
>>> colleagues forced the current implementation delay.
>>> >
>>> > Conclusion
>>> >
>>> > Many members fear that if SFUFA was certified as a union, the
>>> entire Framework Agreement would be renegotiated, and we would lose
>>> rights we already have. This is actually very unlikely.
>>> >
>>> > From the time we began a certification drive, the Labour Relations
>>> Board disallows any change to existing policies. No change is allowed
>>> for 4 months after certification succeeds. In the case of UBC, the
>>> existing framework agreement was simply rolled into the first
>>> contract. I understand that across Canada, in all sectors, no
>>> corporate management or administration ever required re-negotiation
>>> of existing working conditions after certification.
>>> >
>>> > I am confident, given the excellent relationship between SFUFA and
>>> our SFU administration, that SFU would not be the first Canadian
>>> institution ever to demand renegotiation of all working conditions.
>>> >
>>> > I encourage everyone to attend our General Meeting this Wednesday,
>>> November 6. It is at 2:30pm at IRMACS (ASB (10900). Members can also
>>> join the meeting electronically at both Surrey (SUR 5200) and
>>> downtown (HC 2250) campuses.  Voting will be by secret ballot.
>>> >
>>> > All the best
>>> > Neil R Abramson, President
>>> > SFUFA
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>

-- 
Dr Paul Percival
Professor of Chemistry
Simon Fraser University and TRIUMF
percival@sfu.ca
percival@triumf.ca
http://chemistry.sfu.ca/people/profiles/percival


-- 
Nancy Forde
Associate Professor
Department of Physics
Simon Fraser University
8888 University Dr.
Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6
--
nforde@sfu.ca
778-782-3161; 778-782-3592 (fax)
http://www.sfu.ca/fordelab